2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)

[NDSU grad]

5 minutes ago, NDSU grad said:

It depends on the model you use to determine the true number of infections.  I think you can conservatively estimate the true number of infections to be about 4X the number of cases, although some models put the number as high as 10x.

Here's a pretty good link that explains the above.  The only thing about this data is that the areas under the curve should be integrated to get an average of their true infection/case rate across time.  That would give a much better indication of the total number of infections for a population at a given point in time.

[Oxbow6]

4 minutes ago, dynato said:

That's exactly what many of you have been proposing for a while, that we want to let the virus be virus, no precautions, no personal responsibility, no freedoms suppressed, let it spread to everyone willy nilly. That is the basis for the model you continually mock, yet it sounds like you agree that we would easily reach 74,000 deaths if those conditions were met.

Where have I said that? That's hardly the case.

[Bison06]

3 minutes ago, dynato said:

That's exactly what many of you have been proposing for a while, that we want to let the virus be virus, no precautions, no personal responsibility, no freedoms suppressed, let it spread to everyone willy nilly. That is the basis for the model you continually mock, yet it sounds like you agree that we would easily reach 74,000 deaths if those conditions were met.

Not true, I haven’t heard anyone say that. People advocating for opening up are saying that we should be protecting the vulnerable and giving those who are vulnerable additional options to keep themselves protected. 

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

6 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

An improper vote only serves to negate a proper vote. 

Unless you voted twice like T asked his followers?

[dynato]

1 minute ago, Bison06 said:

And a month from now when everybody comes back out from hiding, cases will spike. Just kicking the can down the road.

Maybe so, maybe not. The question is at what cost and to what benefit? Does one out weigh another in the point of view of their countrymen?

[NDSU grad]

Here's another article that proposes to estimate true number of infections.  Disclaimer:  If we use this dude's formula North Dakota would be at herd immunity.  I think one fault in his model is he doesn't take into account the number of tests as a function of the total population.  I think as testing rate increases the ratio of true infections/cases has to go down, regardless of what the positivity rate is.  But that's just me.

[Oxbow6]

1 minute ago, dynato said:

Maybe so, maybe not. The question is at what cost and to what benefit? Does one out weigh another in the point of view of their countrymen?

You're smarter than that. 

[NDSU grad]

1 minute ago, NDSU grad said:

Here's another article that proposes to estimate true number of infections.  Disclaimer:  If we use this dude's formula North Dakota would be at herd immunity.  I think one fault in his model is he doesn't take into account the number of tests as a function of the total population.  I think as testing rate increases the ratio of true infections/cases has to go down, regardless of what the positivity rate is.  But that's just me.

In case you don't want to read the article and enjoy playing around with numbers the guy's formula is:

prevalence-ratio = 16 * (positivity-rate)^(0.5) + 2.5

[dynato]

5 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

You're smarter than that. 

Manitoba could institute lockdown after lockdown until a safe vaccine is in play. They obviously value prolonging human life over their economy if they are locking down for a second time when having less than 1000 positive tests daily. This to me means that they may have a target to never let COVID spike out of control in their province. 

[homer]

14 minutes ago, dynato said:

That's exactly what many of you have been proposing for a while, that we want to let the virus be virus, no precautions, no personal responsibility, no freedoms suppressed, let it spread to everyone willy nilly. That is the basis for the model you continually mock, yet it sounds like you agree that we would easily reach 74,000 deaths if those conditions were met.

Lol.  I don’t think anyone on here has said that.  Personal responsibility has been thrown out as most important many times.  You may want to reread this thread.  

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

7 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

And a month from now when everybody comes back out from hiding, cases will spike. Just kicking the can down the road.

By the time we come out of hiding, the election (and recounts) should be over? No can to kick.
 

[zonadub]

A friend in Michigan went to vote on Nov 3 and was refused. She was told she had already voted by mail.

 

She had not received a mail ballot nor voted by mail.

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

4 hours ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

You're asking the wrong question, and it belies a high level of arrogance and condescension.

We should let EVERYONE (i.e., all ages), and especially those over 65, decide for themselves whether they want to self-isolate.  And then your question would (at least, should) eventually be, how many of each camp died from COVID?  To which the ultimate answer (which might have some actual scientific value) will remain unknown for some time, but at least in the interim the world can move on.  Besides, we all end up dead anyway.  Will the last one standing -- once you're done pointing at all of our graves and gloating at having been "right" -- please remember to turn out the lights?

I've said it before, America was built on self-determination, choices, and risks.  I'll be damned if I tell "them" what to do or what's good for "them."

So I take it when you drive:
You follow who is ahead of you by less than 6'
Don't use your glasses
Speed down oneways the wrong way
Leave brights on and never dim
Don't buckle seat belts.
Don't wash your car with soap
etc.

 Most of local and state govenments have concerns about this virus and not letting it rip.

GF considering $1500 mask fine? 
https://www.valleynewslive.com/2020/11/10/grand-forks-to-consider-mask-mandate-enforceable-by-law/
A warning Tuesday night from Grand Forks health officials. As COVID-19 cases skyrocket, they’re taking action. A mask mandate enforceable by law is expected soon in the county.

[dynato]

7 minutes ago, homer said:

Lol.  I don’t think anyone on here has said that.  Personal responsibility has been thrown out as most important many times.  You may want to reread this thread.  

I know personal responsibility has been thrown out there. I've seen it, I've expressed that myself in this thread. I've also seen people say they would be more depressed if they lost their job vs close family members. The 74000 deaths model is called the do-nothing model for a reason. I am just pointing out that the 74,000 deaths is realistic given the assumptions used to make it. 

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

27 minutes ago, homer said:

 You may want to reread this thread.  

I wouldn't ask anyone to go through that.

[TheFlop]

7 minutes ago, dynato said:

I know personal responsibility has been thrown out there. I've seen it, I've expressed that myself in this thread. I've also seen people say they would be more depressed if they lost their job vs close family members. The 74000 deaths model is called the do-nothing model for a reason. I am just pointing out that the 74,000 deaths is realistic given the assumptions used to make it. 

74,000 will die of infected hang nails over a long enough sample period. 

[The Sicatoka]

39 minutes ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

Unless you voted twice like T asked his followers?

If you check he said mail in your vote and then try to vote on election day to verify they received the mailed version. (NC will stop you from in-person if they've already received your mail-in.) 

[UND1983]

1 minute ago, dynato said:

I know personal responsibility has been thrown out there. I've seen it, I've expressed that myself in this thread. I've also seen people say they would be more depressed if they lost their job vs close family members. The 74000 deaths model is called the do-nothing model for a reason. I am just pointing out that the 74,000 deaths is realistic given the assumptions used to make it. 

To sum it up:  mask mandates were somewhat worthless this entire time.  It will now take a lockdown to achieve what we were told could be achieved via mask mandates and social distancing.  As evidenced by the states that are spiking the exact same as their neighbors that didn't have any mandates.  

[Oxbow6]

1 minute ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

I wouldn't ask anyone to go through that.

Well played

[Oxbow6]

Just now, UND1983 said:

To sum it up:  mask mandates were somewhat worthless this entire time.  It will now take a lockdown to achieve what we were told could be achieved via mask mandates and social distancing.  As evidenced by the states that are spiking the exact same as their neighbors that didn't have any mandates.  

So lockdowns kill the virus? 

[The Sicatoka]

32 minutes ago, dynato said:

Manitoba could institute lockdown after lockdown until a safe vaccine is in play. They obviously value prolonging human life over their economy if they are locking down for a second time when having less than 1000 positive tests daily. This to me means that they may have a target to never let COVID spike out of control in their province. 

Tear the band-aid off slow, or tear the band-aid off fast. 

Either way the net is "one band-aid removed". 

My question is: "What isn't getting done while you're slowly removing the band-aid?"

[homer]

10 minutes ago, dynato said:

I know personal responsibility has been thrown out there. I've seen it, I've expressed that myself in this thread. I've also seen people say they would be more depressed if they lost their job vs close family members. The 74000 deaths model is called the do-nothing model for a reason. I am just pointing out that the 74,000 deaths is realistic given the assumptions used to make it. 

So why write that people on here prefer no personal responsibility if you have read it?

[UND1983]

3 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

So lockdowns kill the virus? 

No, but that is what I am being told.  

[The Sicatoka]

If the goal is to make all the 18-39 year olds who've had it "criminals", sure, lock it down.

I don't see them putting up with it again --> "fool me once ... "

[dynato]

6 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Tear the band-aid off slow, or tear the band-aid off fast. 

Either way the net is "one band-aid removed". 

My question is: "What isn't getting done while you're slowly removing the band-aid?"

My answer is humans will prevail and progress regardless of the scenario chosen. The things that are not getting done now, will get done eventually. So why pursue a scenario that leads to more deaths earlier rather than later?